Damian Menscher <menscher(a)uiuc.edu>@redhat.com on 04/07/2004 04:57:13 PM
wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jeff Elkins wrote:
>
> > I'm getting failure messages on my nfs mounts i.e. :
> >
> > mount to NFS server 'music.elkins' failed: server is down.
> >
> > nsfd appears to be running and I didn't see anything suspicious in the
logs.
> > The servers are up and running and have other clients connected.
>
> You didn't mention what steps you took to debug it:
>
> Can you ping the server?
> What is the output of rpcinfo -p servername?
> Does the server have access restrictions (firewall, TCP Wrappers, etc)?
I have the same symptoms...
rpcinfo says that nfs et.al. are running.
Something has changed in test 2, since the same PC running RH9
accesses that host just fine.

I don't know the right way to fix this, but something is definitely broken;
and something needs to be fixed, one way or the other. The question is what
exactly needs to be fixed.
Consider something like this:
LIBS="-lresolv $LIBS"
AC_TRY_LINK_FUNC(res_query, AC_MSG_RESULT(yes), AC_MSG_RESULT(no))
Here's what happens on x86_64:
gcc -o conftest -g -O2 -Wall -I.. -I./.. conftest.c -lresolv >&5
/tmp/ccW7EeDX.o(.text+0x7): In function `main':
/home/mrsam/src/courier/authlib/configure:5160: undefined reference to
`res_query'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
configure:5147: $? = 1
configure: failed program was:
[ blah blah blah ]
| /* We use char because int might match the return type of a gcc2
| builtin and then its argument prototype would still apply. */
| char res_query ();
| int
| main ()
| {
| res_query ();
| ;
| return 0;
| }
The same exact test on FC1 x86 will work.
The reason appears to be that you have to #include <resolv.conf> on x86_64
in order to succesfully pull res_query() out of libresolv.so. You don't
need to do this on x86, and the test program generated by AC_TRY_LINK_FUNC
does not include any headers, but uses a manual prototype.
So, what now?

What if Fedora Core development was divided in two divisions, the
GNOME division and the KDE division, the releases will be available to
be GNOME-only or KDE-only releases on seperate iso's, the GNOME ISO
will specializes only on GNOME softwares and applications. There will
be a micro-managed bug fixing for GNOME-only related softwares, the
effort will be concentrating on much more focused approach than the
traditional (hybrid ISO's), same to the KDE ISO, wherein include a
KDE-only related (or specialized) softwares and applications.

Hi folks,
We now have a full set of sparc packages that match up to Fedora Core 2,
and its name is Tangerine. Did you know that of the top ten hits for
Tangerine on Google, none of them have anything to do with the fruit?
You should eat more tangerines, they're quite tasty and good for you.
But I digress.
Like the previous release (1.91), its not an installable tree
so again this means no ISOs.
I'm going to repeat this one more time: THERE ARE NO ISOS FOR 1.92.
Why? Because anaconda is hard, and people didn't want to wait another 6
months for me to figure out what is broken. However, if anyone is willing
to try on their own to get this working, we're happily accepting patches.
But, unless someone else takes up the charge, this tree branch will stop
at 1.92. If someone fixes anaconda so that the installer actually works past
keyboard selection, I'll spin a new tree.
In the meantime, we're refocusing the effort on a new tree, which is
currently going to be based on Fedora Core 3. You can follow the daily
notes for this work here: http://auroralinux.org/journal.php
Now, I have yumified the tree, so if you're feeling really brave, you
can always point yum at it, and try to upgrade that way. A version of
yum for Aurora 1.0 is here:
http://linux.duke.edu/projects/yum/download/1.0/yum-1.0.3-1_73.noarch.rpm
If you're running 1.91, you should be able to use the yum in that tree.
Going from 1.91 to 1.92 is reportedly a fairly painless process.
If you're a listed mirror site, please sync the build-1.92 directory,
and chime in. The primary directory is currently at:
ftp://ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/distributions/aurora/build-1.92/ (and)
ftp://auroralinux.org/pub/aurora/build-1.92/
Now, for the known bugs:
The "rpm" package in 1.92 is a little broken on sparc32 systems. Its my fault.
Fixed packages are already available from:
ftp://ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/distributions/aurora/updates/1.92/ (and)
ftp://auroralinux.org/pub/aurora/updates/1.92/
A temporary workaround is to run: export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5.
Build 1.92 uses SILO 1.4.8 which should work fine. It seems to occasionally
burp when you're trying to tab completion, but I can't reproduce this
consistently. If it breaks for you, let me know.
There is no SMP kernel for sparc32, upstream has marked this as broken.
Any other bugs that you find? Please either email me or file them in
bugzilla.auroralinux.org, under Corona.
Last but not least, we've setup a hardware support matrix Wiki to keep track
of what works and what doesn't. You can find it here:
http://auroralinux.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?HardwareCompatibility
Thanks for your continued patience and support,
~spot
---
Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat*com> LCA, RHCE
Red Hat Sales Engineer || Aurora SPARC Linux Project Leader
"If you are going through hell, keep going."
- Sir Winston Churchill

I don't know if this is to be considered as a bug, an exotic configuration
or an manipulation error.
When I was trying to upgrade my Fedora to Fedora Core 2.92 Test 3 (86_64),
the program blocked.
My root directory is on a reiserfs filesystem. Other distributions are installed
on the same disk on other partitions. I removed them from fstab before upgrading.
When I selected updating (and after a few other replys, like language and
keyboard) a dialog box appeared "looking for packages" the mouse did move
and the mousecursor suggested waiting, and changed after a regular interval.
Only in the beginning there was some disk access, than nothing else happened.
When I did try to install without formatting or erasing the partition, I
had the same problem after selecting the packages etc.
Using a "linux reiserfs" commandline after the bootcd had started up didn't
change anything.
My old installation is still functional.
If I remember well their was no problem installing the old version, I just
had to add the parameter reiserfs in lilo.conf to get the root directory
mounted.
I hope this is useful
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiscali ADSL GO & Light, 2 maanden gratis, geniet ervan...
http://reg.tiscali.be/adsl/welcome.asp?lg=NL

I've installed vino and tried to turn on the 'remote desktop' from the
preferences, with a password. However, when I try to connect vncviewer
to my box ("192.168.1.129:0") I get a connection refused. What am I
missing?
--
Aaron Gaudio <prothonotar(a)tarnation.dyndns.org>

ew Phishing Expedition Targets Red Hat/Fedora Users
Oct 25, 2004, 02 :30 UTC (0 Talkback[s]) (6 reads)
(Other stories by Brian Proffitt)
http://linuxtoday.com/security/2004102500826SCRHSW
By Brian Proffitt
Managing Editor
It's not often that someone tries launching a trojan attack on Linux
users, but earlier this weekend it appears that someone was trying to do
just that to Red Hat and Fedora Core users.
An e-mail message was sent to several Red Hat users over the weekend,
claiming to be from the RedHat [sic] Security Team. The note warned
recipients to download and install a patch for fileutils-1.0.6,
indicating that a vulnerability "could allow a remote attacker to
execute arbitrary code with root privileges."
The note was seen in the wild earlier this weekend, but it is still
being delivered. This reporter received the message as late as 6:55 PM
EDT today. The message arrived five times, and were all delivered to my
work account, which is not the account I use to register products.
The content of the note, complete with Red Hat logo, tries to tell a
good tale, as seen below, but the spelling errors and the improper From
address are clues of the note's false nature.
"Original issue date: October 20, 2004
"Last revised: October 20, 2004
"Source: RedHat
"A complete revision history is at the end of this file.
"Dear RedHat user,
"Redhat found a vulnerability in fileutils (ls and mkdir), that
could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code with
root privileges. Some of the affected linux distributions
include RedHat 7.2, RedHat 7.3, RedHat 8.0, RedHat 9.0, Fedora
CORE 1, Fedora CORE 2 and not only. It is known that *BSD and
Solaris platforms are NOT affected.
"The RedHat Security Team strongly advises you to immediately
apply the fileutils-1.0.6 patch. This is a critical-critical
update that you must make by following these steps:
* "First download the patch from the Security RedHat mirror: wget
www.fedora-redhat.com/fileutils-1.0.6.patch.tar.gz
* Untar the patch: tar zxvf fileutils-1.0.6.patch.tar.gz
* cd fileutils-1.0.6.patch
* make
* ./inst
"Again, please apply this patch as soon as possible or you risk
your system and others` to be compromised.
"Thank you for your prompt attention to this serious matter,
RedHat Security Team..."
The domain fedora-redhat.com is part of a netblock owned by Yahoo,
according to Netcraft.com. It is not an official Red Hat site.
The security team at Red Hat has already noted the existence of the fake
warning, and has posted this message, dated October 23, at
http://www.redhat.com/security/:
"Red Hat has been made aware that emails are circulating that
pretend to come from the Red Hat Security Team. These emails
tell users to download and run an update from a users home
directory. This fake update appears to contain malicious code.
Official messages from the Red Hat security team are never sent
unsolicited, are always sent from the address
secalert(a)redhat.com, and are digitally signed by GPG. All
official updates for Red Hat products are digitally signed and
should not be installed unless they are correctly signed and the
signature is verified..."
Red Hat and Fedora Core users are urged not to download or install the
software highlighted in this ficticious message.